[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Banajabasini Pradhan And Ors vs Union Of India on 12 December, 2025

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                                                 Signature Not Verified
                                                                 Digitally Signed
                                                                 Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
                                                                 Reason: Authentication
                                                                 Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
                                                                 Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                F.A.O. No. 203 of 2021
        (In the matter of an Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
        Tribunal Act, 1987).


        Banajabasini Pradhan and Ors.       ....                      Appellant (s)
                                   -versus-
        Union of India                      ....                  Respondent (s)

      Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
        For Appellant (s)           :                Mr. Akansh Acharya, Adv.
                                                                  on behalf of
                                                    Mr. Dhananjay Mund, Adv.
        For Respondent (s)          :                    Mr. Rakesh Behera, CGC

                  CORAM:
                  DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                      DATE OF HEARING:-21.11.2025
                     DATE OF JUDGMENT:-12.12.2025
      Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this appeal, the appellants seek a direction from this court to set

aside the nil award dated 22.04.2021 passed in OA (IIU) No.348 of 2017

by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and to grant

statutory compensation of eight lakh rupees with interest for the

accidental death of the deceased.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(i) The appellants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Sankarshan

Pradhan, filed OA (IIU) No. 348/2017 before the Railway Claims

Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, seeking compensation under Section 124A of

the Railways Act, alleging that the deceased died due to an accidental

fall from a running train while travelling from Kharagpur to Jajpur

Road. A journey ticket bearing No. UWC-13329357 was stated to have

been recovered from the possession of the deceased during the inquest.

The incident was reported between Kendrapara and Manjuri Road

railway stations near KM No. 309/37-39, where the deceased's body

was found in two parts.

(ii) The contemporaneous documents on record, including the FIR, inquest

report, post-mortem report, and final police report, recorded the death

as having occurred on the railway track. The appellants initially

mentioned Train No. 12887 (Howrah-Puri Express) in the claim

application and subsequently sought amendment to refer to Train No.

12863 (Howrah-Yeshwantpur Express).

(iii) The Respondent Railway relied on the statutory DRM investigation

conducted under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of

Untoward Incident) Rules, 2003, and submitted under Sections 129 and

190 of the Railways Act. The DRM report noted that Train No. 12887

was a weekly train that did not operate on the date of the journey

ticket, and recorded observations regarding the position and condition

of the deceased's body, the absence of eyewitnesses, and lack of

material indicating negligence on the part of the Railway

Administration.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(iv) The Railway Claims Tribunal framed five issues relating to the nature

of the incident, bona fide passengership, entitlement to compensation,

dependency, and relief. After considering the pleadings, documents

and evidence adduced by both sides, the Tribunal concluded that there

was no proof establishing that the deceased had purchased or travelled

with a valid ticket, that the exact train allegedly travelled by was

unclear, and that the injury pattern did not support accidental fall from

a running train. The Tribunal held that the death did not fall within the

definition of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the

Railways Act and dismissed the claim through a nil award dated

22.04.2021, without deciding Issues 4 and 5.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The appellants contend that the statutory scheme under Section 124A

imposes strict liability on the Railways once death results from an

untoward incident, unless the Railways proves one of the narrow

statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or criminal

act. They argue that negligence, lack of eyewitnesses, or inconsistencies

in narration do not bar compensation under the no-fault regime.

Reliance is placed on authoritative precedents including Union of

India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar1, which makes negligence

irrelevant under Section 124A.

(2008) 9 SCC 527.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(ii) The appellants challenge the Tribunal's finding that the ticket was

planted solely because the train number was initially mentioned

incorrectly in the claim application. They argue that the journey ticket

was seized contemporaneously during the inquest, making planting

impossible. They emphasise that the Tribunal itself allowed

amendment of the claim, and that bona fide mistakes in naming the

train cannot override physical recovery of the ticket. They rely on Rina

Devi (2018), which holds that bona fide passenger status can be proved

through circumstantial evidence even when the ticket is lost or

damaged in an accident.

(iii) The appellants argue that the Tribunal's reliance on the DRM report,

prepared years after the incident, is arbitrary, especially when all

contemporaneous documents such as inquest report, PM report and

final police report consistently attribute death to accidental fall from a

running train. They submit that such speculative reasoning cannot

substitute statutory presumption under Section 124A once accidental

fall is shown. They rely on Jameela and Ors. v. Union of India2, which

held that accidental fall from train constitutes an "untoward incident"

even if passenger stands near the door.

(iv) The appellants strongly dispute the Tribunal's reasoning that the

deceased being found in two pieces implies suicide. They submit that it

is common in accidental falls for victims to be run over by the same

train or another train, and that subsequent run-over does not alter the

nature of the initial mishap. They rely on Santosh Kumar Sahoo v.

AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3705.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Union of India3, where this Court held that run-over injuries do not

negate accidental fall.

(v) The appellants finally submit that none of the statutory exceptions

under the proviso to Section 124A apply in this case, there is no

evidence of suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication or criminal

activity, and that the Tribunal erred by denying compensation on

speculative and conjectural grounds. They pray that the High Court set

aside the nil award and grant compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with 12%

interest, directing Railway Administration to deposit the amount

before the Tribunal for appropriate disbursal.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Respondent asserts that the appeal is not maintainable in law or on

facts, as the Tribunal's findings are reasoned, evidence-based, and

arrived at after proper consideration of all material on record. They

deny the appellants' assertion that the Tribunal relied on conjecture,

reiterating that the Tribunal rightly found that the deceased was not a

bona fide passenger and that his death did not arise from an untoward

incident under Section 123(c)(2).

(ii) The Respondent challenges the correctness of the appellants' factual

claims, particularly the existence and authenticity of the journey ticket,

the alleged train of travel, and the narrative of accidental fall. They

FAO 135 of 2020.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

argue that the appellants' attempt to amend the train number two

years after filing the OA, only after the DRM report contradicted their

initial claim, shows deliberate manipulation to match a convenient

train schedule. They maintain that the ticket recovered was planted,

and that mere oral assertions of the applicant cannot establish travel.

(iii) The Respondent contends that the condition of the body proves the

improbability of accidental fall, relying on judicial precedent such as

Dharambiri Devi v. Ministry of Railways4, which held that a body cut

into two cannot normally result from a fall through a door of a moving

train due to trajectory and centrifugal force. They argue that the

injuries are more consistent with suicide or intentional presence on the

tracks rather than accidental fall.

(iv) The Respondent asserts that the appellants have discharged no initial

burden of proof to show bona fide passenger status or establish that

the deceased died due to an untoward incident. They emphasise that

mere presence of a body on railway premises is insufficient, citing

Union of India v. Rina Devi5, and that a claim cannot be sustained

without cogent evidence. They submit that the GRPS final report's

opinion is only an assumption and cannot be relied upon without

supporting proof.

(v) The Respondent contends that the beneficial nature of the Railways

Act cannot be stretched to accommodate claims unsupported by

evidence, and liberal interpretation cannot legitimise fraudulent

(2008) 03 DEL CK 0072

AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 2362.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

claims. They maintain that the act of the deceased falls within the

exceptions to Section 124A (such as suicide or criminal act), not within

the definition of an untoward incident, and therefore compensation is

barred. They argue that the FAO lacks merit, contains incorrect

statements, and must be dismissed.

IV. ANALYSIS AND REASONING OF THE TRIBUNAL:

5. The Tribunal's judgment proceeds by clubbing Issues 1, 2 and 3

(untoward incident, bona fide passengership and entitlement under

Section 124A) and treating them as a single composite inquiry, with the

result that its ultimate finding that there was no "untoward incident"

and no bona fide passengership effectively disposes of the entire claim,

leaving Issues 4 and 5 (dependency and relief) unanswered.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal places decisive weight on

the evidence of AW-1 (wife of the deceased), highlighting that she is

not an eye-witness, does not know how or when the occurrence took

place, and has not even seen the body; her testimony is labelled

"purely hearsay" and is rejected as incapable of establishing accidental

fall, which becomes a central plank of the Tribunal's refusal to accept

the occurrence as an "untoward incident".

7. The Tribunal next focuses on contradictions and uncertainties

surrounding the train number: the OA originally mentioned Train No.

12887 Howrah-Puri Express (a weekly train not running on the alleged

date), and only after the DRM's report pointed this out did the

applicants seek an amendment to substitute Train No. 12863 Howrah-

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

YPR Express; this sequence is treated as indicative of afterthought, a

"deliberate attempt" to find a train that fits the ticket timings, casting a

"cloud of doubt" over the genuineness of the entire claim.

8. Using ticket timing and schedule calculations, the Tribunal reasons

that the window between ticket issuance at Kharagpur (22:33 hrs on

27.09.2017) and detection of the body (around 01:30-01:40 hrs on

28.09.2017), coupled with the scheduled running time of the HWH-

YPR Express, makes it improbable that the deceased could have

travelled by the amended train and fallen at the spot between

Kenduapada and Manjuri Road; this leads the Tribunal to conclude

that the deceased "definitely had not undertaken journey" by the said

train and that death "may have been caused otherwise".

9. The Tribunal undertakes a detailed analysis of the post-mortem report

and injury pattern, emphasising that the body was severed into two

pieces and that the cause of death was "railway cut injuries"; while

accepting that such injuries are consistent with run-over, it refuses to

infer that they resulted from an accidental fall from a moving train,

reasoning that, in a fall, centrifugal force would normally fling the

body away from the track, not under the wheels, thereby invoking and

applying the Delhi High Court's reasoning in Dharambiri Devi (supra)

regarding trajectory and impossibility of a body being cut into two in a

simple fall.

10. While the judgment cites Rina Devi (supra), especially the proposition

that mere presence of a body on railway premises is not conclusive of

bona fide passengership, the Tribunal primarily uses Rina Devi (supra)

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

to justify a strict evidentiary threshold, emphasising that there is "not

an iota" of direct evidence of accidental fall, that the recovery of a

ticket without proof of purchase or boarding is insufficient, and that

the applicants have failed to discharge the initial burden of proof

necessary even under a beneficial statute.

11. The Tribunal gives limited weight to the GRPS final report, terming its

conclusion of accidental fall as a "pure assumption" and refusing to

rely on it; instead, it privileges circumstantial reconstructions from

schedule timings, the DRM's investigation report and physical

condition of the body, ultimately preferring a hypothesis that the

deceased was either crossing the track or died in a manner attracting

the exceptions (a)-(c) under Section 124A, though it does not specify

which exception is conclusively proved.

12. In its overall approach, the Tribunal treats statutory "untoward

incident" and bona fide passengership as high-threshold factual

predicates requiring direct or very strong circumstantial evidence of

purchase of ticket, boarding and fall; in the absence of eye-witnesses,

with disputed ticket genuineness, and with train-number confusion, it

resolves all doubts against the claimants rather than in favour of

coverage under a beneficial, no-fault liability scheme.

13. The judgment ultimately concludes that the case "would not be

deemed to be an untoward incident" under Section 123(c) IR Act, finds

that the deceased was neither proved to be a passenger in a train

carrying passengers nor to have accidentally fallen from such a train,

and on that basis dismisses the OA without costs, explicitly declining

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

to decide dependency and quantum issues as a consequence of its

adverse findings on the foundational issues.

V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

14. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

15. The case involves claims under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989

for compensation on account of death of the deceased who was found

dead on railway tracks with a valid journey ticket in his possession.

The principal questions are whether the deceased was a passenger

under Section 124A and whether his death resulted from an "untoward

incident" as defined by Section 123(c) of the Act.

16. Section 124A is a no-fault or strict liability provision: once an

"untoward incident" occurs, the Railway is liable to pay compensation

irrespective of negligence or fault on its part. The proviso to Section

124A carves out narrow exceptions (suicide, self-inflicted injury,

criminal act, intoxication, disease), which must be strictly proved by

the Railway if it seeks to escape liability.

17. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court held that

the phrase "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying

passengers" in Section 123(c) must be given a liberal, purposive

construction to further the benevolent object of the Act. The relevant

excerpts are produced below:

"No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', the first being that it

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred."

18. Applying that principle, a bona fide passenger who falls while

boarding, alighting or even standing near an open door of a running

train is covered by the definition of "untoward incident". Once such an

incident is shown, Section 124A creates an absolute duty on the

Railway to compensate, and it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at

fault.

19. Secondly, it is undisputed that a valid journey ticket in the deceased's

name was recovered from his person at the site of the accident. Section

2(29) of the Act defines "passenger" as a person travelling with a valid

ticket or pass, and the Explanation to Section 124A expressly states that

a "passenger" includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket and

becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

20. Here, the ticket was found on the deceased during the course of the

inquest. There is no evidence to suggest the ticket was planted or

fabricated. Absent any proof of tampering, the recovery of the ticket is

strong prima facie evidence that the deceased had boarded the train

with a valid ticket, making him a bona fide passenger within the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

meaning of the Act. This is reinforced by the statutory Explanation to

Section 124A. The contention that the train number was initially

misstated does not vitiate the fact of purchase; honest mistakes in

identifying the train do not negate the existence of the ticket. Once a

valid ticket is shown, the onus shifts to the Railway to disprove

passenger status.

21. The Tribunal found that the deceased was not shown to be a bona fide

passenger because (a) the ticket's authenticity and recovery were

disputed, and (b) an initial error in naming the train suggested

fabrication. This Court rejects this approach. As recently held by the

Supreme Court in the case of Rajni v. Union of India6, mere non-

recovery of a ticket is not ipso facto fatal if the claimant lays a credible

prima facie foundation of travel.

22. Here, a ticket was actually recovered; it was not merely "non-

recovery." The Railway's assertion of planting was speculative; in the

absence of any witness evidence to the contrary, that finding cannot be

sustained. Indeed, where a ticket is recovered from the deceased's

person and there is no evidence of foul play, it would be contrary to

justice to disregard it. The regime of compensation is meant to protect

passengers, and a passenger's negligence in standing by an open door

is not a "criminal act" that falls within the exceptions. Here too, there is

no evidence at all of a criminal act or of suicide.

23. It is also not seriously disputed (and indeed all contemporaneous

documents record) that the deceased fell from the train. The Railway's

2025 INSC 1201.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

train-schedule argument, that the timings made travel unlikely, is an

impermissible post-hoc conjecture. In any event, even assuming the

deceased boarded the amended train as sought to be proved, there is

no impossibility demonstrated. The statutory presumption favors the

passenger in the absence of contrary proof.

VI. CONCLUSION:

24. In sum, the appellants have made out a prima facie case of entitlement:

the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket, and died as

a result of an accidental fall ("untoward incident") with no exception

proved. Section 124A thus unambiguously entitles the dependants to

compensation. The Railway has failed to discharge any burden of

proof to deny liability. The Tribunal's contrary conclusion was based

on conjectures and a strict reading of facts disfavored by the statutory

design. Applying the guiding precedents and the laws, this Court must

uphold the claim.

25. Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The nil award of the Tribunal is

set aside and the appellant is held entitled to compensation. A lump

sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh) is awarded to the appellants,

which was the notified compensation for death on the date of

application (or such higher amount as may be prescribed under the

latest rules). This Court further directs payment of interest at 6% per

annum from the date of the claim application until the date of this

award, and 9% per annum thereafter until payment, as has been

ordered by this Court in similar cases.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

26. The Tribunal is directed to release 50% of the awarded amount to the

Appellants proportionately by way of account transfer or cheque and